NationStates Jolt Archive

I just read Animal Farm, Finally! About a week ago I was in my study hall (bored to tears as usual) and I stumbled across my English Teacher taking Animal farm out of her bag. I go up to the teacher explain how I've heard how great the book is and she asks me if I would like to read it. I accepted and I finished the book in a matter of hours. Its funny because she is going to explain it to her 8th grade class and I'm in 10th! Well anyway I read the book and by understanding the broad picture of Communism I thought the Book was fantastic. In my opinion it is a must read.

It is a wonderful book.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

All animals are equal,

except the mOds who run this place.. :p

I very much enjoyed Animal Farm, especially since it didn't do the whole propoganda "OHMYGOSH! COMMIES ARE TEH EVIL!!" thing that so many people like to see. Orwell very clearly believed in the ideals behind Communism, and had problems with its implementation, rather than the impetus behind the original movement.

2 LEGS GOOOD 4 LEgs BAAAD!

I also noticed that. It did a great job of letting you see yourself how communism effects others and the bad sides of it. It doesnt just spit out.

and I just read 1984.

<silence>

I very much enjoyed Animal Farm, especially since it didn't do the whole propoganda "OHMYGOSH! COMMIES ARE TEH EVIL!!" thing that so many people like to see. Orwell very clearly believed in the ideals behind Communism, and had problems with its implementation, rather than the impetus behind the original movement.

Exactly. It's a classic, definitely a must read.

and I just read 1984.

<silence>

Now THAT'S a novel. I thoroughly enjoyed that book.

Orwell's work is in general brilliant. A self described socialist who hated communism, he did some excellent work.

Animal Farm is an amazing story about the corruption that power brings. It's basically the story of Trotsky and Stalin fighting for power as well. But the whole thing paints a picture of how human ambition destroys what could be a utopic society.

1984 was equally brilliant, if not more so.

Animal Farm is brilliant...really should get round to re-reading it again. I would say 1984 is better. Though that may have more to do with me having only re-read it a couple of weeks ago, rather than 5 years ago as is the case with Animal Farm.

Actually from what I know he was very against communism, it's just that it didn't stop him from understanding that good people honestly beleived in it and that it sounds like a good idea that people can relate to.

Just because he presented it as agreeable and in the interest of the characters in the book doesn't mean that he himself endorsed it, because I don't think he did.

Actually from what I know he was very against communism, it's just that it didn't stop him from understanding that good people honestly beleived in it and that it sounds like a good idea that people can relate to.

Just because he presented it as agreeable and in the interest of the characters in the book doesn't mean that he himself endorsed it, because I don't think he did.

Orwell himself was very clear that he believed very strongly in the ideals that Marx put forth. However, he felt that Communism, as it was practiced in the USSR, was a farce. He supported Trotsky very strongly.

George Orwell was very much a socialist, and while he sympathised with Marx's general ideals, he was a critic of some of the Marx/Engels practical ideas. Orwell especially objected to the idea of socialism being implemented through revolution, both as it was bound to involve many acts of injustice, and it was likely to mean that those who came to power as a result of the revolution would turn out to be as aggressive and corruptible as those they replaced (as indeed happened in the Russian Revolution, which is what Animal Farm highlights).

So Animal Farm isn't just a bitter condemnation of Stalinism, it's also a gentler criticism of Marxism. But whatever you may have been told, to his dying day Orwell was always very much a Socialist.

By the way, yes, Nineteen Eighty-Four was definitely Orwell's finest work.

1984 was definitely Orwells' finest work. Animal Farm clearly follows close behind.

I need to get Animal Farm. I read it in eighth grade, but I want to read it again. Hell, the have a MOVIE about it, too.

As far as I know there are two movies of it in fact. There was a cartoon version made in the 1950's, and a live action one made with real farm animals and embarrassing voice overs in 2000.

Orwell is one of the best writer's I have ever read, his views are also very similar to mine. Ninenteen Eighty-Four first got me intereested in politics and the left back when I was 14 and Animal Farm really influenced many of my views on the USSR and Marxist-Leninism.

Ah, I love that book. The movie(the live-action one) isn't as good, though.

So Animal Farm isn't just a bitter condemnation of Stalinism, it's also a gentler criticism of Marxism.

:confused:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Animal Farm wasn't primarily about Communism/Socialism at all. I don't think that it has anything to do with an abstract simplistic "power corrupts" or "human ambition" either.

Reading it a few months ago, it seems to me that it is about capitalism in the guise of a critique of Communism - it has the reader expectantly following the "devolution" of Animal Farm into the corrupt dictatorship of Communism, only to show at the end that the "Communists" and capitalists are indistinguishable. Looking back through the story, you can then see that all of the changes introduced by the pigs were capitalist changes - imposition of a class society, death penalty as a means of keeping "law and order", constant obsession with a military threat, commodification of goods, working for profit rather than need, the subsequent calvinist American work ethic glorifying "hard work" as a virtue in itself (of course, for the laboring classes, because the brain-work class works much harder and needs rest, just like the capitalist "idea-man" works so hard and is just not appreciate by those greedy ignorant workers asking for raises).

George Orwell was very much a socialist, and while he sympathised with Marx's general ideals, he was a critic of some of the Marx/Engels practical ideas. Orwell especially objected to the idea of socialism being implemented through revolution, both as it was bound to involve many acts of injustice, and it was likely to mean that those who came to power as a result of the revolution were likely to be as aggressive and corruptible as those they replaced (as indeed happened in the Russian Revolution, which is what Animal Farm highlights).


First of all, Marx was extremely short on "practical ideas", writing more about his analysis of existing social relations and the seed of a new society within the old. Second, revolution does not simply mean some war - it is a revolution in social relations - I recently wrote on my regional board:
"Feudalism did not end when all the vassals fought against their lords; yes, the long and protracted revolution did involve violence and bloodshed, but violence in and of itself was not the effective cause. Feudalism ended when social conditions made its ties *irrelevant* - and as such, feudalism was superseded by bourgeois social relations. The revolution of social forms *was* the Revolution, not this or that battle or war."

Marx and Engels similarly stated that in some advanced capitalist nations, including the US and UK, revolution could proceed from elections, though they thought that it would be the capitalists who would violently resist this "legal" transfer of power. Third, in neither the revolution of Animal Farm nor the Russian Revolution were the forces of the revolution the same brutal forces that later came to power, so neither example stands as evidence of the statement "those who came to power as a result of the revolution were likely to be as aggressive and corruptible as those they replaced (as indeed happened in the Russian Revolution, which is what Animal Farm highlights)".

By the way, I'm neither a Marxist in any orthodox sense nor a Russophile - I'm just a libertarian socialist who respects a good argument and doesn't want to see Orwell's work emasculated by the way that he is tamed through education.

I can only get to these boards so often, but I practically live on LiveJournal, so if you'd like to discuss this more, I'll put up a post today titled "On Animal Farm" - feel free to reply to it. Here's the URL:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/_boy_/31188.html

Personally i found both Animal Farm and 1984 tedious and dull, though Animal Farm was moderatly more so than 1984, if you want a book in a similar vein just go for Brave New World and be done with it.

Or if you want a trully good book go for Gormenghast - Mervyn Peake or The Melancholy Death of Oyster Boy & Other Stories - Tim Burton

I don't think that it has anything to do with an abstract simplistic "power corrupts" or "human ambition".

Er, neither of which I mentioned, which makes it a little odd that you choose to refute it in reply to me.

Reading it a few months ago, it seems to me that it is about capitalism in the guise of a critique of Communism - it has the reader expectantly following the "devolution" of Animal Farm into the corrupt dictatorship of Communism, only to show at the end that the "Communists" and capitalists are indistinguishable.

Pretty much the point I made only with a slightly different emphasis. The people who took power after the revolution proved no better than what was there before. And just because Stalin didn't fight in the revolution itself, that doesn't mean the rest of the Bolsheviks were okay. Leon Trotsky, for one, was a nasty piece of work.

Looking back through the story, you can then see that all of the changes introduced by the pigs were capitalist changes - imposition of a class society, death penalty as a means of keeping "law and order", constant obsession with a military threat, commodification of goods, working for profit rather than need, the subsequent calvinist American work ethic glorifying "hard work" as a virtue in itself (of course, for the laboring classes, because the brain-work class works much harder and needs rest, just like the capitalist "idea-man" works so hard and is just not appreciated by those greedy ignorant workers asking for raises).

Yes. That's still not actually arguing with the point I'm making, so I still don't quite understand the reason for your confusion.

First of all, Marx was extremely short on "practical ideas"

Correct. That's one of the criticisms Orwell was making. He was saying the Communist Manifesto was not achievable because it was, in effect, an unfinished work.

Marx and Engels similarly stated that in some advanced capitalist nations, including the US and UK, revolution could proceed from elections, though they thought that it would be the capitalists who would violently resist this "legal" transfer of power.

And they were right about that, but it's not quite the point. Orwell simply felt that the Marxist vision was unrealistic as a just society is very unlikely to emerge directly out of a violent revolution. Even the American War of Independence didn't produce a society that was any more just after the event than before it (it was many, many years before it was measurably democratic).


Third, in neither the revolution of Animal Farm nor the Russian Revolution were the forces of the revolution the same brutal forces that later came to power, so neither example stands as evidence of the statement "those who came to power as a result of the revolution were likely to be as aggressive and corruptible as those they replaced (as indeed happened in the Russian Revolution, which is what Animal Farm highlights)".

It does in fact. The exact details of how the llikes of Stalin got into power is not that important, the fact is they did as a result of the Revolution, opportunistically leeching off the allies who created the new society. And as I mentioned above, Lenin's and Trotsky's habit of defeating opposition by throwing armies at it didn't set them out as great huminatarians either. Orwell was saying that, unlike an orderly society, violent revolution has no rules and so there is no controlling the outcome of it.

By the way, I'm neither a Marxist in any orthodox sense nor a Russophile - I'm just a libertarian socialist

Same here. So why are we arguing?

and doesn't want to see Orwell's work emasculated by the way that he is tamed through education.

I wasn't emasculating his work, far from it. If I were, I'd be one of the countless millions who think that he ceased to be a socialist after his travails in Spain. I was actually pointing out extra depths to it that most people miss e.g. that Marxism was as much a target of his criticism as Stalinist Russia was.

All animals are equal,

except the mOds who run this place.. :p

:(

:(

As in more equal than us spammers

I very much enjoyed Animal Farm, especially since it didn't do the whole propoganda "OHMYGOSH! COMMIES ARE TEH EVIL!!" thing that so many people like to see. Orwell very clearly believed in the ideals behind Communism, and had problems with its implementation, rather than the impetus behind the original movement.

Orwell was a Socialist, he just objected to oppressive governments hijacking the Socialist movements.

Orwell himself was very clear that he believed very strongly in the ideals that Marx put forth. However, he felt that Communism, as it was practiced in the USSR, was a farce. He supported Trotsky very strongly.


Sort of. He was sure that Marx had a few things very wrong, though. Like how the revolution would come about. That's why the Animals only rebelled against Joe then the were hungry, and not before; Marxist theory would have them rebel anyway, and it's just not true.

And as for the USSR, it wasn't communist once Stalin got anywhere near it. Stailn's idea was that the state owned everything, and HE was the state. Which is why Orwell hated him so much.

Another of Orwells overated tales of the good tsar lenin :rolleyes:

Both 1984 and Animal Farm are good in my opinion.

Another of Orwells overated tales of the good tsar lenin :rolleyes:

At what point in Animal Farm was any of the pigs painted in a particularly good light?

Snowball wasn't particularly bad, but he seemed like a fanatic and at least a little naive.

The one in the begining, and snowball yes. But hes perpetuating the myth of Lenin and Trotsky's noble goals being ruined by stalin.

Reading it a few months ago, it seems to me that it is about capitalism in the guise of a critique of Communism - it has the reader expectantly following the "devolution" of Animal Farm into the corrupt dictatorship of Communism, only to show at the end that the "Communists" and capitalists are indistinguishable. Looking back through the story, you can then see that all of the changes introduced by the pigs were capitalist changes - imposition of a class society, death penalty as a means of keeping "law and order", constant obsession with a military threat, commodification of goods, working for profit rather than need, the subsequent calvinist American work ethic glorifying "hard work" as a virtue in itself (of course, for the laboring classes, because the brain-work class works much harder and needs rest, just like the capitalist "idea-man" works so hard and is just not appreciate by those greedy ignorant workers asking for raises).

Bwahahaha. Firstly, class societies will always exist, so saying it's a product of capitalism is just you being unbelieveably biased against something you don't like and has nothing to do with the economic system of capitalism in and of itself. No, because in capitalism you have supply and demand, i.e. the masses find use for a product and so people build it and ask for legal tender in return, the amount being what the market will bear. The pigs deciding what will be produced is akin to what happened in the USSR and to a lesser extent, Italy when it was in the throes of Fascism. The effects of supply and demand are essentially the producers of your "idea men" being in charge, because they provide something that's rare compared to what a common factory worker or miner does. There is a healthy supply of those who can work in the mines or factories. on the other hand, there is a much smaller supply of those people who can organise supply lines and the like, ergo, they are payed more.

The one in the begining, and snowball yes. But hes perpetuating the myth of Lenin and Trotsky's noble goals being ruined by stalin.
You can hardly say he was perpetuating a myth, considering when he wrote it.

The one in the begining, and snowball yes. But hes perpetuating the myth of Lenin and Trotsky's noble goals being ruined by stalin.


Well, Lenin and Trotsky certainly had nobel goals before the rovolution. But I suppose that Lenin DID set up the first camps of the Gulag, even if he didn't make them as brutal as Stalin later 'upgraded' them too...

Mind you, at that point they were for REAL prisoners, and not run on a quota basis. "We need to find 30 criminals a MONTH, Comrades, and the population of our town is only 24."

:confused:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Animal Farm wasn't primarily about Communism/Socialism at all. I don't think that it has anything to do with an abstract simplistic "power corrupts" or "human ambition" either.

It's not about Socialism, or Communism, no. It's about Russia, and how Stalin neatly avoided either system.

Well, Lenin and Trotsky certainly had nobel goals before the rovolution. But I suppose that Lenin DID set up the first camps of the Gulag, even if he didn't make them as brutal as Stalin later 'upgraded' them too...

Mind you, at that point they were for REAL prisoners, and not run on a quota basis. "We need to find 30 criminals a MONTH, Comrades, and the population of our town is only 24."
Not if you were a Don Cossack.

Not if you were a Don Cossack.

It WAS a civil war. You can't have them without some people getting hurt; it's sadly unavoidable. And since the civil war was lead by Don Cossacks AGAINST the Bolshevik government, and the Cossacks had been used to brutally supress Bolsheviks before the October Revolution, it's no suprise that they didn't get a good time of it.

So that validates ethnic cleansing? This is the logic of Milosovich.

So that validates ethnic cleansing? This is the logic of Milosovich.


Lenin wasn't responsible for the ethnic cleansing. Stalin was. Lenin was dead by that point; or at least deactivated.

And anyway, I've always been suspicious of anyone who puts themself in power. Surely the best leaders would be those who didn't want to be leading in the first place? Anyone who wants to become a leader must want power, and so that leads to them taking more.

I don't think that it has anything to do with an abstract simplistic "power corrupts" or "human ambition".

Er, neither of which I mentioned, which makes it a little odd that you choose to refute it in reply to me.
No, you didn't. BLARGistania and Bunglejinx did. I wasn't intending to aim my post to you, but to all of the readings I disagreed with.

It seems to me that it is about capitalism in the guise of a critique of Communism.

Pretty much the point I made only with a slightly different emphasis.
Really? My point was "it is about capitalism in the guise of a critique of Communism" and you stated "Animal Farm isn't just a bitter condemnation of Stalinism, it's also a gentler criticism of Marxism.". Those don't sound like the same point to me. We can disagree. I just find my interpretation more useful for me.

The people who took power after the revolution proved no better than what was there before. And just because Stalin didn't fight in the revolution itself, that doesn't mean the rest of the Bolsheviks were okay.
First, I thought that Stalin did fight in the revolution - he just wasn't a politician. Second, stating simply that "the people who took power after the revolution proved no better than what was there before" skirts the historical events and comes dangerously close to the "power corrupts" or "human ambition" argument we both rejected earlier. It's not just a matter of leaders, violent revolution or what not; it's structure and social relations.

Soviets (democratic councils) were formed all over the country and formed the backbone of support when the Bolsheviks came to power. Decisions were made collectively and the government consisted of representatives of these soviets. It was only later during the counterrevolution that the soviets lost self-determination and the Bolshevik Party purged the government and Party, deciding that they could best articulate the will of the people (ending democracy). This was not simply one leader ousting another - the way society functioned was changed from the bottom up. They became totalitarian, not through a new leader, but through influence of the counterrevolution and crushing this alternative social structure that had developed.

all of the changes introduced by the pigs were capitalist changes

Yes. That's still not actually arguing with the point I'm making, so I still don't quite understand the reason for your confusion.
Where am I confused? I'm making a case that Animal Farm is a subtle critique of capitalism, in showing its totalitarian aspects in an alien light. You are saying that it is a gentle criticism of Marxism.

Marx was extremely short on "practical ideas"

Correct. That's one of the criticisms Orwell was making. He was saying the Communist Manifesto was not achievable because it was, in effect, an unfinished work.
In Animal Farm? Or anywhere else? I don't see Orwell making a criticism of Marx or the Communist Manifesto. And how would the "unfinished work" of the Communist Manifesto become "finished" anyway? ;) This statement doesn't make sense, at least none that I can see.

Marx and Engels similarly stated that ... revolution could proceed from elections.

And they were right about that, but it's not quite the point. Orwell simply felt that the Marxist vision was unrealistic as a just society is very unlikely to emerge directly out of a violent revolution.
Dude, that's exactly the point. First you say that Marx is right that revolution can be achieved electorally rather than violently, and then you say that Orwell thought that the "Marxist vision" of "violent revolution" was unrealistic. If Marx said that revolution didn't require violence, then in what way is "violent revolution" a "Marxist vision"?

I'm neither a Marxist in any orthodox sense nor a Russophile - I'm just a libertarian socialist who respects a good argument

Same here. So why are we arguing?
Probably because I like to argue. :D Or more likely because I think that we are saying two different things and I wanted to clarify the differences as I see them.

and doesn't want to see Orwell's work emasculated by the way that he is tamed through education.

I wasn't emasculating his work, far from it.
I don't think that you were emasculating his work, but that his work is emasculated by simple interpretations fed through high school English classes, -these simple interpretations are what I am criticizing here.

I was actually pointing out extra depths to it that most people miss e.g. that Marxism was as much a target of his criticism as Stalinist Russia was.
And I was pointing out that the capitalist "free world" of his readers was as much a target of his criticism as Stalinist Russia.

As far as Marxism goes, rather than being a criticism, I think Orwell's work goes far to affirm the insights of Marxism. But that's just my opinion. :)

Bwahahaha. Firstly, class societies will always exist
Says who? Unsupported assertions disguised as facts do not take the place of evidence or reason in any argument. Even if one were to agree that there has never been a classless society (and I disagree), it does not logically follow that "class societies will always exist".

so saying it's a product of capitalism is just you being unbelieveably biased against something you don't like and has nothing to do with the economic system of capitalism in and of itself.
:rolleyes: Granted, I don't like capitalism, but that has nothing to do with bias. Do you dislike socialism simply because you are "unbelieveably biased against something you don't like"? And I'd like to think that I'm fairly well-educated on the subject of neoliberal economics - I haven't always hated capitalism - so my criticism is not simply "bias".

And yes, capitalism is dependent upon class divisions; without a working class, capitalism would cease to exist.

No, because in capitalism you have supply and demand,...
If you really want to debate this, let me know, but it seems like you're more interested in stating your opinion than having a conversation. Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

Animal Farm and 1984 are both brilliant. Excellent critiques on Soviet Russia (Not Socialism, or Communism - as often thought).

Zombie Orwell for President '08. In fact, I'm going to make a resolution. Any any event that both candidates suck in the US elections, I'm writing in George Orwell. He's without a doubt the greatest political writer in the history of mankind.

I very much enjoyed Animal Farm, especially since it didn't do the whole propoganda "OHMYGOSH! COMMIES ARE TEH EVIL!!" thing that so many people like to see. Orwell very clearly believed in the ideals behind Communism, and had problems with its implementation, rather than the impetus behind the original movement.


Orwell however never intended the book to show how communisms ideal were good in ay way, don get me wrong but communism is to much of a pipe dream, it is the product of several minds lost in the romanticizm of minds that beilieve that equality is more important than freedom. :sniper:

1984 was definitely Orwells' finest work. Animal Farm clearly follows close behind.

I need to get Animal Farm. I read it in eighth grade, but I want to read it again. Hell, the have a MOVIE about it, too.
Actually, I think Animal Farm is better than 1984.